<html>
<body>
John--<br>
Thank you for your responses. They have helped me to better
understand this process and the comments made. MIT will await the
decision of the group.<br>
Karin<br><br>
At 10:52 AM 7/14/2006, John Cowan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Karin Rivard scripsit:<br><br>
> I am writing on behalf of MIT. It's not clear to me if this is
how <br>
> the process works, but the group has raised a few issues on which I
<br>
> would like to comment.<br><br>
Be aware that there's a difference between substantive objections<br>
and mere grousing, although it's hard to tell which is which unless<br>
you've been on the list for a while.<br><br>
> 1. The requirements for OSI certification do not include a
<br>
> requirement that the originator of the software offer a license to
<br>
> originator owned patents. As has been pointed out in the
discussion <br>
> group, MIT's position on not offering a patent license in the
BIPL <br>
> is consistent with the GPL, the BSD license, the MIT license, the
<br>
> Educational Community License, and others.<br><br>
At least some of these have been interpreted to offer implicit<br>
patent licenses (the MIT license uses the magic word "use"
for<br>
exactly that reason -- copyright-only licenses have nothing to<br>
say about use), and the GPL explicitly says that you can't<br>
distribute software under it if a patent forbids, which is<br>
tantamount to saying (assuming you want to distribute at all)<br>
that no patent of the licensor's does forbid.<br><br>
> 2. There is a lack of parity in treatment of the Originator of
the <br>
> code and future contributors to the code. This is true.
MIT will <br>
> not offer the patent license; however, the requirement on <br>
> contributors was an attempt to procure for users as many
"freedom to <br>
> use" rights as possible. If this disparity in treatment
is so <br>
> abhorrent to OSI, it is easily remedied. MIT will delete from
the <br>
> BIPL all references to any patent grants from contributors.
Thus the <br>
> BIPL will simply be another open source license that is silent on
<br>
> patent rights.<br><br>
This is a legitimately debatable point. We tend to be hostile
to<br>
asymmetrical licenses, though you are quite right that they have<br>
been approved in the past.<br><br>
> 3. I do not understand the last comment from the list.
The software <br>
> is what is used. The license is the mechanism by which the
software <br>
> is used. If no one contributes to the development of the
software <br>
> because they do not like the license terms, that is ok. The
fact <br>
> remains that the software remains freely and openly available for
use <br>
> by the public, which I thought was the goal. Further,
"use" or <br>
> "usability" is not one of factors that is stated as a
requirement for <br>
> OSI approval.<br><br>
We are reluctant to go through the effort of approving licenses
which<br>
no one but the drafter of the license will ever make use of.<br><br>
-- <br>
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
<a href="http://ccil.org/~cowan" eudora="autourl">
http://ccil.org/~cowan</a><br>
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the<br>
continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the
sea,<br>
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a<br>
manor of thy friends or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes
me,<br>
because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know
for<br>
whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. --John Donne</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=2>__________________________________________________<br>
Karin K. Rivard, Asst. Director and Counsel<br>
MIT Technology Licensing Office, Room NE25-230<br>
Five Cambridge Center, Kendall Square<br>
Cambridge, MA 02142<br>
Phone: (617) 253-6966; Fax: (617) 258-6790<br>
Email: rivard@mit.edu<br>
</font></body>
</html>